www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Orthodox in Communion

Christ is risen!

Maybe you should leave it to the BYZANTINE CATHOLICS to aswer questions about their beliefs?

Just an idea...

Christian

Dear Christian,

First of all, thank you!

Balaban correctly characterizes both historic versions of Eastern Catholicism as well as contemporary ones - although I would resist his inclination to depict a homogeneous ECism in this way.

There are Orthodox who encourage greater Byzantinization among EC's and their support and encouragement are always appreciated by us.

There are also Orthodox who such Byzantinization with suspicion as a perfectly unLatinized "Orthodox in communion with Rome" Church presents something of a threat to their own cherished notions of "Uniatism" and the like.

I am sympathetic to both of these views, although I prefer the former one.

And there are Orthodox that nomatter what an EC does - he or she will always be "Latinized" and is only "imitating" outward Orthodox forms without having a true inner conviction about Orthodoxy itself.

Alex

"Christ is risen!

Maybe you should leave it to the BYZANTINE CATHOLICS to aswer questions about their beliefs?

Just an idea...

Christian "

Khristos Anesti!
Alithos Anesti!

Last I checked I was a member of this forum and was allowed the capability of addressing topics. This topic in question I provided my view of as non-exclusionary of the views of others but in dialogue with them. Perhaps, "free speech" elsewhere isn't all that "free" but I, as others, am not subject to the arbitrary dictates of someone else. It isn't shocking that some would prefer that not be the case; however, it is shocking that they advance "plurality and diversity" for all except those with which they do not agree. I don't accept anyone's arbitrary and hostile model of totalitarian monologue: please don't address me with that in mind again.

I thank you for your respect as an interlocutor, Mr. Alex, and I appreciate your word of dissenting encouragement.
E D

Dearest Orthodox brother Balaban,

Perhaps I am misconstruing what you have said, and I do ask your forgiveness if I am, but saying 'the Latin doctrine of the Assumption' is just plain wrong.

I have done much research in many arenas of Orthodoxy (ie:different jurisdictions and different countries) and have consulted with many clergy, monastics, bishops, read church fathers, traditional theologians, etc, and last time I looked, not only was the Assumption of our Most Holy and Blessed Lady Theotokos purely and solidly Orthodox, but as Bishop Kallistos Ware has said, the Latin church adapted it from us! The only way we differ on this tradition (with a capital 'T') is on the premise of it being declared 'doctrine' in the West.

I am aware, as is Bishop Kallistos, that the down playing or downright rejection of the Panayia's assumption is nothing but a 'knee jerk' reaction of those (Orthodox) who wish to find differences at all costs with the West, and/or with those that have disdain for the fact that this doctrine has been declared by the Pope of Rome. The rejection of the Assumption is also espoused by the more liberal Orthodox in the U.S. who wish to gradually become more Protestantized.

Anyway...just my two cents!

Wishing you every blessing of our Resurrected Christ,
Christos Anesti!
Alice

Khristos Anesti!
Alitos Anesti!

The latin dogma of the Assumption does have an Orthodox party which has supported it in the past. Likewise, the Immaculate Conception. However, the accepted Orthodox teaching on the Dormition is that the Theotokos did die but her body was assumed into heaven. The latins teach, however, that she did not die and couldn't, because of her "immaculate conception", and was assumed into heaven as a "co-mediatrix". This further nominalizes christology and overstates the role of the Theotokos. She is All-Blessed and Ever Virgin, but she is not "co-Saviour" and she was not born without ancestral sin, for if she were, she would represent the restoration of human nature that Christ accomplished for us, and her birth would have been messianic, dismissing the need for Christ. It is in this that the Orthodox, aside from the obfuscations of +Bishop Kallistos, differ from the latins.
E D

Christos voskrese!

Speaking as a (at this point) Latin - I don't think this is the case? We do believe that her body never suffered any corruption, but whether she died or not has not, I think, been definitively settled. Of course, I have no references here, and I could be wrong - Marian dogmas are not my strong point.

At any rate, Jesus did, obviously, die - so it would be very odd were the Latin Church to teach that Mary could not have done so.

Khristos Voskrese!
Voistino Voskrese!

Mr. Alex,

On two points I would respectfully disagree.
Firstly, to speak of the "soviet church" as utterly evil and hateful is inaccurate. It is a martyred Church which was washed of the transgressions of some by the blood of the Holy New Martyrs. Moreover, there were truly pious and good hierarchs amongst the MP during the era: +Bishop John of Ladoga & +Metropolitan John of Petersburg spring to mind. I recently procured a book dedicated to the Pskov Caves Monastery and its holy legacy in this era. I subscribe to RUSSKY PALOMNIK, an excellent spiritual journal. There are several more such examples. I won't paint with a broad brush, but I will say that the upper echelons were utterly compromised and engaged in the heinous sin of sergianism to repress Orthodoxy in the soviet union. This is something that simply has to be rejected and overcome. I can't overcome the misgivings of many of the Byzantines in the former soviet block and how many were brutally, lethally, and idiotically "reunited to Orthodoxy"; however, I must also interject and say that by no means is this issue black and white with these populations even today. One need only consider their pilgrimages in large numbers during the period in question to very staunchly Russian Orthodox spiritual centers and the appreciation they manifested there on pilgrimage, Holy Trinity-St. Sergius Lavra, the Chapel Of Blessed Ksenia, the Kiev Caves Lavra are just a few examples of how they did not "totally hate Russian Orthodoxy". I have known people who had worked for +Alexis II and they to a man testify to his "inherently decent and fair character and generous and clement heart". While he is, of course, far too liberal and compromised to me, he is, at the same time, a much more legitimate interlocutor than political adventurers like +Laurus. I would support him firstly, if posed to choose between the two. I think his legacy will be reinstituting a structure that recovered from sergianism--my concern is that it is not on its way to rejecting it.

On the issue of ethnic foods, we have gone through this in other posts and I have more than legitimated my position. I have forebears in all the worlds in question, with a specifically "Ukrainian" contingent, and I believe I can adequately attest to the identity of myself, my line, and our people, the blood we shed, etc., especially after having examined the issue comprehensively. I do not deny local distinctions, even divergent linguistic and social evolutions due to historical circumstance, but I must reemphasize that the fundamental aspects of unity and identity of these disparate regions have always had a common definition, history and culture and that in no wise can a separate "ethnos" or "nationality" be posited in regard to these warring factions with any considerate and learned legitimacy. Where does one stop? "Great Ukrainians" have long felt that "Galician letters" were replete of quackery, that their speach with redundantly reflexive "sjas" was odd and that they really were nothing more than "hutzuls who had succumbed without resistance to foreigners, 'to the ljakhi (Poles)'". The "Ukrainians" continually try to repress the Russian identity of Carpatho-Russians who do not want to engage in this historically inaccurate revision to redefine their identities. I would further amplify this by saying that the constant "Ukrainian" verbal assault against Carpatho Russians, Lemkians, et al as being "ne ryba, ne mjaso", qv "neither flesh nor foul" as a patently insulting and condescending discrimination which is almost criminal. And there are many more examples. Whom does this serve?! As I have stated prior, this rousseauian model is artificial and simply does no good for anyone. Rus' is historic and fact and something which unites without malice, and it is true without dispute.
E D

Christus Surrexit!
Vere Surrexit, Alleluia!

Here is a latin theological definition of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary:

http://www.catholicculture.org/docs/doc_view.cfm?recnum=2956

I hope this helps.
E D

Yes, Jesus did die, but the point you miss is the reason for death: sin. Since Christ was sinless, death had no power over Him and He overthrew it and freed the souls in hell (hades)captive of sin. Likewise to accept that the Theotokos was "immaculately conceived" one must therefore accept the restoration of human nature in her and her incapability of dying, for she had no sin.
E D

Four years of theology studies, and all I can conclude is that...I need to get some sleep before I muddy the waters further. :rolleyes: Thanks for the link - g'nite!

Dear Brother in Christ Balaban,

Some Latins may have said that the Theotokos did not die...but it is inaccurate to state that is the position of the Latin Church. For example, I remember a quote from John Paul to the effect that the Theotokos did die. The popular Catholic magazine Envoy a few years back stated quite firmly that she did die citing the Coptic and Byzantine tradition as proof.

Similarly with what the Latins refer to as "the Immaculate Conception." The point is simply this: The Theotokos has always been in the grace of God and never was estranged from Him. To imply that the Catholic view makes her an equal to Christ is a misunderstanding of the Catholic position.

Christ Is Risen!
Indeed He Is Risen!

The Dogma of the Immaculate Conception, as defined by the latin church, is that the Theotokos was free of the guilt of ancestral sin--that would mean she would be the equivalent of the "daughter of man" and a messianic figure, for she would represent the redemption of human nature. I'm glad you can appreciate the dangerous exagerration of this position.

When the Dogma of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin was first promulgated, it was with the understanding that the Theotokos did not die and could not, for she was free of ancestral sin. This fed into the latin teaching on "Co-Redemptrix", etc.

What you underscore is a need for dialogue with the Fathers and the Orthodox to overcome overstatements in teachings which are extremely important. Remember, these are declared "DOGMAS" of the latin church, which means they are requisite to belief for the salvation of the believing Catholic. Here, I believe the Byzantine vocation would be interesting to take this issue up and call for a "better definition" in Council or ex cathedra to clarify these troubling exagerations.
E D

http://personal.lig.bellsouth.net/O/L/OLRosary/sermons/assumption_2003.html

What about the Prophet Elijah who was assumed into heaven by chariots of fire? What about Enoch who didn't die? The Latin Church is silent whether Mary died or not when it affirmed the dogma of the Assumption.

Just like to ask, if the Sacrament of Baptism is administered for the forgiveness and remission of sins, why do we administer this sacrament to infants who did not commit any actual sin? The theology of infant baptism is not clearly articulated in the East, I suppose.

Dear Balaban,

Let's not forget that the Orthodox belief is presently (at one time, a few centuries ago, the immaculate conception was espoused in many Orthodox circles, monastics included!) that the Blessed Mother of God was made immaculately free of sin at the Annunciation. Her purity, which Orthodoxy hymnology extolls more highly than the West does, has nothing to do with salvific theology but with the correct idea that our Lord could not dwell within anything but a pure VESSEL...(sound familiar?)

I think that many Orthodox are really reading much too much into the Western dogma of the Immaculate conception. Infact, our Lady Herself, must not have had a great problem with it, for she presented herself to the illiterate peasant girl, St. Bernadette of Lourdes with the greeting of "I am the Immaculate Conception".(St. Bernadette didn't have a clue as to what this meant when she relayed it to her priest).

The RC church has not definitively commented on whether our Lady's body was corrupted or not, however, as she was taken into heaven upon the dormition (according to Orthodox belief), she was, infact, not corrupted...to me that means that the effect of original sin was not accorded to her.

I prefer to look at the cup half full in understanding the West...perhaps it is because I feel that all this talk of differences is idle, non-constructive, and of no significance to anyone's salvation--in my humble opinion, it perpetuates the great human sin of egotism...nor do I think that it matters to our Omnipotent God who is far beyond our human, limited, egotistical limitations... for there is no schism in heaven!

In our Risen Lord,
Alice